i admit to not having spent much time playing this map so I won't speak to what you should do, but as for what you can do... yes, it would be possible to set up the code so that territories are split up in two and/or three player games. You could code three start positions so it would only affect 2 and 3 player games - if there are more than three players the start positions would be ignored.

oaktown wrote:i admit to not having spent much time playing this map so I won't speak to what you should do, but as for what you can do... yes, it would be possible to set up the code so that territories are split up in two and/or three player games. You could code three start positions so it would only affect 2 and 3 player games - if there are more than three players the start positions would be ignored.

Thanks for the feedback oak. I think Ben suggested that earlier.

However I think the problem might be present even in doubles (2v2) games. That's why I am opting for the neutrals. Maybe I'll put a poll up to gauge the opinion of other players as well.

I think that if a player starts with the lower left zone could have an advantage.But on the whole i like your map, there's some different way to take the victory.And a bit of luck i suggest you to set 1 neutral.

(I only played 1 vs 1 game)

But if you like leave the map as it is now!It's funny

Thenobodies80

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

Nice map, Ruben!I'm gonna do some nitpicking again Don't know whether this has been discussed before, I'm sorry if it has.How did you choose the order of the region names for you legend? Clockwise, I'm guessing?I was very confused when I first saw it. IMHO, it would be more logical to place them more like their actual location on the map.A suggestion:

saaimen wrote:Nice map, Ruben!I'm gonna do some nitpicking again Don't know whether this has been discussed before, I'm sorry if it has.How did you choose the order of the region names for you legend? Clockwise, I'm guessing?I was very confused when I first saw it. IMHO, it would be more logical to place them more like their actual location on the map.A suggestion:

The purpose of the Beta Phase is iron out any gameplay glitches (such as occurred on Das Schloss), and to ensure that there are no significant flaws affecting the way games play (missing connections in XML; imbalanced gameplay). It's a failsafe to the foundry process, rather than a time for nitpicking - the nitpicking should come before the map is quenched.

If you get yourself signed up onto the review mailing lists (threads in Not Maps subforum), then you'll be alerted when maps are earlier on in the development process

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

Ruben Cassar wrote:Sorry but I'm not doing any of those changes at this stage.

I will try to improve the gameplay though with that neutral option.

Why not ?It's bèta... Does anyone back up my point, or doesn't it make sense to you guys?

Ben has already answered you on this one.

However on a personal note, even if you would have mentioned this before in the development stage I would not have agreed with you. I prefer the regions to be listed in a clockwise order, as you said earlier. Just because you prefer them in another way it does not mean I would have changed it, this is just a matter of personal taste not an improvement per se.

Ruben Cassar wrote:However on a personal note, even if you would have mentioned this before in the development stage I would not have agreed with you. I prefer the regions to be listed in a clockwise order, as you said earlier. Just because you prefer them in another way it does not mean I would have changed it, this is just a matter of personal taste not an improvement per se.

Ok, no problem I just wasn't sure whether it was a deliberate choice. I'm not asking you to change it just for the sake of my opinion. I just thought I'd bring it up and see if anyone feels the same.

MrBenn wrote:The purpose of the Beta Phase is iron out any gameplay glitches (such as occurred on Das Schloss), and to ensure that there are no significant flaws affecting the way games play (missing connections in XML; imbalanced gameplay). It's a failsafe to the foundry process, rather than a time for nitpicking - the nitpicking should come before the map is quenched.

If you get yourself signed up onto the review mailing lists (threads in Not Maps subforum), then you'll be alerted when maps are earlier on in the development process

Maybe I'll do that I know I'm not making myself popular by coming to nitpick on all bèta maps when I haven't been around before that.It's just that keeping up with the development of all (or most) maps takes a lot more time than bringing up a few issues that catch my eye when the map is in bèta stage. After all, you wouldn't expect everyone to keep up with all of the Foundry, right? I think bèta is the time when people who are not so involved in the Foundry forums can give their opinion and maybe bring up some very important criticisms. If they're small changes that can make a big difference, why should they not be welcomed when a map is 'already' in bèta?

ADDED:Just to give you an example, cairnswk did welcome my graphics suggestion for his Ottoman Empire map when it was already bèta'd

Don't get me wrong...your post was appreciated. It's just that I don't think that a change is necessary in that particular area. It's just a matter of personal taste.

When someone brought up the gameplay issue while in beta I gave it some thought and decided that it could be an important issue even though no one apart from him commented on it. In fact a change to the gameplay will be implemented to the map to try to improve its balance.

On a side note, it would help to bring these issues up during development and not when a map is finished. It's hard work finishing a map and people don't like to make changes once it's finished.

Yes. Do not change a thing.... 2... 11%No. There should be 1 neutral on every torri region to avoid players who start first from gaining an unfair advantage... 2... 11%No. There should be 2 neutrals on every torri region to avoid players who start first from gaining an unfair advantage.... 9... 50%No. There should be 3 neutrals on every torri region to avoid players who start first from gaining an unfair advantage.... 5... 28%

Total votes : 18

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

There are other maps where this can be true--Pearl Harbor being a big example of one--and I think that it's not necessarily that the first player to play always has the advantage, since sometimes, both people get a bonus right off the bat. Most maps can give you horrible drops; that's just how it works.

To me, it was just a part of the map, like learning how to play AoR 2 means... learning how it works.

You were definitely asking for feedback. I wanted to be sure that mine was included--because I had a lot of fun on this map playing 1v1 with the old settings, and much less with the new settings.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

jwithington wrote:I liked it better when it was random--made it so that perhaps one or both players could start with a bonus.

I voted in the poll as such too....

Ruben Cassar wrote:Ok guys...I'm playing a doubles on it right now and to me it seems more balanced now.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Yes but that's what makes it less balanced and is exactly what we wanted to avoid!

Hmmm... I'm not too sure how I feel about the neutral armies - it just feels like there are a lot of them, and it's not as if this is the biggest map in the world in the first place

I think a better solution would be to create 3 starting positions, as follows:

Starting Position 1

MontegiardinoLa VeneziaGualdiccioloCorianinoCa'Vagnetto

Starting Position 2

CaldeseChiesanuovaGavianoLe GrotteFiorina

Starting Position 3

CiribieiCa'VecchiaAcquavivaCa'AgostinoValle Giurata

This breaks up all the small bonus regions, and ensures that in 2/3 player games, nobody will get a small bonus from the drop (and that each player will have at least 1 torri, but not all of them). The territories not included in starting positions are then divided equally among the players, so the rest of the map will be allocated randomly. The start positions are ignored if there are more players than positions, so will not effect larger player games, where it can be argued that the drop is less of an influencing factor.

I'd be inclined to leave 2 neutrals on Borgo Maggiore and Serravalle to ensure that nobody starts with the biggest bonuses in any case.

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

MrBenn wrote:Hmmm... I'm not too sure how I feel about the neutral armies - it just feels like there are a lot of them, and it's not as if this is the biggest map in the world in the first place

I think a better solution would be to create 3 starting positions, as follows:

This breaks up all the small bonus regions, and ensures that in 2/3 player games, nobody will get a small bonus from the drop (and that each player will have at least 1 torri, but not all of them). The territories not included in starting positions are then divided equally among the players, so the rest of the map will be allocated randomly. The start positions are ignored if there are more players than positions, so will not effect larger player games, where it can be argued that the drop is less of an influencing factor.

I'd be inclined to leave 2 neutrals on Borgo Maggiore and Serravalle to ensure that nobody starts with the biggest bonuses in any case.

Ben I don't agree. The problem is not the starting positions, but the ease by which some of the 2 and 3 territory bonuses can be conquered when one starts as well as starting with a torri bonus.

Putting 2 neutrals on each torri territory effectively solves both the problems. Also note that the main problem is not with Borgo Maggiore and Serravalle, the biggest bonuses, as these are tough to conquer, but with the smaller bonuses.

I have played some doubles and triples on San Marino with the new settings and I think the gameplay is much more balanced.

However I am looking at Game 4542098 which is the game which you are playing with the new settings right now Ben. I guess the experience from this game is what triggered the comments above. Something is not normal in this game. Apart from the 2 neutrals on the torri territories, there are also 10 territories with 3 neutrals on them which should not be there! Those 10 territories should be equally distributed among players 1 and 2. So I guess that's why you have the feeling that there are too many neutrals because in fact there are 10 territories which should not be neutral. I don't know if it's something to do with the XML, but that's not normal and is something that I will have to look into.

Edit: Is it possible that that particular tournament game was created before the XML was updated at that this somehow messed things up because in the new games I started I did not have this problem?

Ruben Cassar wrote: Something is not normal in this game. Apart from the 2 neutrals on the torri territories, there are also 10 territories with 3 neutrals on them which should not be there! Those 10 territories should be equally distributed among players 1 and 2. So I guess that's why you have the feeling that there are too many neutrals because in fact there are 10 territories which should not be neutral. I don't know if it's something to do with the XML, but that's not normal and is something that I will have to look into.

Edit: Is it possible that that particular tournament game was created before the XML was updated at that this somehow messed things up because in the new games I started I did not have this problem?

The starting neutrals (as designated in the XML) are excluded from the territories that are allocated as player starts.

In 1v1 games, 1/3 of the 'allocatable' territories are assigned neutral. In these games then, you've got 1 neutral in each area, and then the additional neutrals in 1v1 games. The starting positions I proposed were purely to counter the massive amount of neutrals in 1v1 games (and would provide a fairer distribution in 3p games). Basically, each player would have at least 1 territory in each of the small areas that would prevent anybody getting the small bonuses from the drop...

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

MrBenn wrote:The starting neutrals (as designated in the XML) are excluded from the territories that are allocated as player starts.

In 1v1 games, 1/3 of the 'allocatable' territories are assigned neutral. In these games then, you've got 1 neutral in each area, and then the additional neutrals in 1v1 games. The starting positions I proposed were purely to counter the massive amount of neutrals in 1v1 games (and would provide a fairer distribution in 3p games). Basically, each player would have at least 1 territory in each of the small areas that would prevent anybody getting the small bonuses from the drop...

Okay I was not aware of this 1/3 neutral rule for 1vs1. Can this be turned off for specific maps?